Violent revolution

The OP asked whether or not violent revolution would be necessary to change certain things, not if it could ever happen. In the US, the only way to fundamentally change the political/economic system would be to overthrow the Constitution. Nothing short of that would work. How, then would the revolutionaries ensure that the aftermath was more to their liking than the previous system. That, of course, depends on what the goals of the revolution are. If it's to redistribute power to a population that currently feels disenfranchised, then that is entirely possible to accomplish by violent revolution. Been done many times. Of course, this usually ends up disenfranchising someone else, but this may not matter to the revolutionaries themselves. Unless you want to empower and enfranchise everyone equally, but the OP didn't specify that. I know of no set of social arrangements that would eliminate social hierarchy entirely, so it's a question of what you're revolting against. In a openly tyrannical system like Tunisia, post-revolution could very well be more democratic than the previous regime (it could hardly be less). But in the US? Most people seem pretty satisfied with the treatment they receive, a violent revolution would probably deliver more costs than benefits.

edited 27th Jan '11 9:08:51 AM by DeMarquis

Vastly more costs than benefits. Typically, revolution within an established nation occurs as a last resort, when society is already down the toilet and it's so bad that the risk of death is more tolerable than whatever your current living conditions are.

I mean, if we wanted to throw the United States out of world superpower status, a revolution would certainly do the job nicely.

edited 27th Jan '11 9:04:44 AM by Fighteer

@deboss: No? I know when an officer can use non-lethal force and generally its in threat of his life. I may not be in fear of my life, per se, but in fear for my safety and as far as I understand gun laws in California, I can only use it in fear of my life. I don't want to kill a guy if I have other options available to me. That said, if someone did anything to hurt or kill anyone in my family, he would be to the morgue as fast as I can take him there. :V

These guys seem to think it's possible .

Edit: NSFW. I forgot basic netiquette. Shame on me.

edited 27th Jan '11 10:11:15 AM by OrangeSpider

I'm not going to risk reading those links from work, but two things seem to be held in common by would-be American revolutionaries: They vastly underestimate the power of the government to defeat them; they vastly overestimate the willingness of the American people to take up arms in support of their cause. Either that or they plan to incite revolution by making things bad enough that people will join them, which is just a wee tad hypocritical.

Its all from the same site, I don't think its relevant.

@deboss: No? I know when an officer can use non-lethal force and generally its in threat of his life. I may not be in fear of my life, per se, but in fear for my safety and as far as I understand gun laws in California, I can only use it in fear of my life. I don't want to kill a guy if I have other options available to me. That said, if someone did anything to hurt or kill anyone in my family, he would be to the morgue as fast as I can take him there. :V

An officer can use non-lethal force if a suspect they are trying to arrest won't stop resisting, thus a few thwacks with a baton or a shot from a tazer or being OC sprayed if the officers just can't get those damn cuffs on because he's thrashing about too much. Lethal force is only authorized when an officer is faced with a situation that endangers his life, or the life of another officer/civilian. The rule of thumb for cops is that they won't pull their gun until a suspect pulls out any type of weapon, the officer is outnumbered, or he's up against an opponent that he feels he has no chance against in hand to hand combat, and doesn't have anything like a taser available, or he thinks that it's extremely likely that he has a weapon and is in a position to where if he did, he could take it out and use it quickly.

@Orange: I skimmed the last article. He wants to draw a parallel between Vietnam, the American Revolution, and the American Indian wars, in order to argue that a domestic insurrection within the US might work.

I'm sure I don't need to point out the specific reasons those scenarios aren't really parallel.

@Barkey: Here in Detroit, there was an infamous incident where two police officers beat a man to death with a maglight. For years afterward, Detroit PD didn't issue it's officers with flashlights or anything else, like batons, that could be used to deliver non-lethal force. Just pistols. That worked about as well as you would think.

Besides, most of them probably just bought items that can be used for self-defense and kept them on them anyway.

In my case, my zippo is perfectly shaped to where it can be used as a pretty damn devastating fistpack.

^

Something worth considering it that our military has more experience with insurgent warfare after Iraq and Afghanistan than almost any other military. If our own people really wanted to do that to us, we would know how to encircle and exterminate them, especially since we have accurate topographical maps of almost the entire US, and we would have lots of civilian cooperation.

edited 27th Jan '11 2:12:26 PM by Barkey

Although, the factories for equipment would be within reach of local insurgents. Hm, interesting logistical choices.

They couldn't operate the factories without logistical support, only wreck them and/or steal what's there. There's a vast supply chain involved in materiél production that insurgents could not access.

If they could do so, then you are talking statewide revolt, ergo civil war, not simple insurrection.

edited 27th Jan '11 2:37:03 PM by Fighteer

That's actually what I meant. Blowing up the factories is a lot easier when you don't have to cross an ocean.

You're postulating significant territorial control by these insurgents. As soon as major industrial facilities come under threat, they get guards with orders to shoot to kill. The military industrial complex is way too distributed to be seriously threatened by this sort of thing, and domestic insurgencies don't require state of the art military equipment to counter anyway.

We have so many stores of supplies in the US that we wouldn't really need all that much to be manufactured, just transported. The only reason we're ever short on anything in Iraq or Afghanistan is because not enough of it was ordered, or way more got used than expected.

What the heck is going on in the middle east?

Tunisia, then Egypt, now Yemen is having protests.

What's next?

Apparently, they want actual, functional democracy. Go figure.

"Apparently, they want actual, functional democracy. Go figure."

Yeah. Sure. Then they'll all convert to Judaism.

I believe violent revolutions are a last resort, but are not off the table.

I abhor being controlled and I will fight tooth and nail if I feel my freedoms are so much a slightly threatened, even if the common view of society shifts I won't.

That being said I see no need in my country at least, for anything close to a violent revolution.

I think most of the US's problems can be fixed my voting in new people on both sides who aren't going to tow party lines.

Blah, blah, Libertarian, blah. You give up freedoms every minute of the day to live in a civilized society. The only reason you'd make an issue of this fact is if you feel that your opinion about what freedoms are valuable is more important than society's as a whole. Which is an anti-society viewpoint that can and will be squashed hard when it conflicts sufficiently.

We all answer to someone - a boss, a teacher, a supervisor, a parent or guardian, a manager, an NCO or officer, we all answer to someone. Do this, don't do that, so on and so forth. That's control. And that's fine. The guy flipping patties in Wendy's needs to be controlled - how long to cook the meat, what to wear to work, not to spit on the burner, and stuff. Think a fast food restaraunt will last long if there's a lack of control?

If someone wants zero control over their lives aside from what reality dictates and their own whims, good luck living on their own in isolation.

But as we're mostly social creatures (even us weird introverts), we have to follow a few (or many, it depends) rules. Sometimes we get to help make those rules - you might be the supervisor, the officer, the manager, the parent.

Rules and laws facilitate order. Yes, some rules and laws are not always liked. Is it our place to decide? Sometimes.

Violent revolution should be the last resort to change the rules and the laws, if all possible methods of fixing the problem has been exhausted, and I'd toss in something about that the existing laws and rules are trampling basic human rights or something like that. Revoultion over a national speed limit would be pretty silly, right?

edited 27th Jan '11 5:09:11 PM by pvtnum11

No my view points will not be squashed by anyone or thing, my body will give out before that will happen, my view point is an idea and ideas cannot be silenced or destroyed by anyone.

edited 27th Jan '11 5:21:10 PM by americanbadass

Good luck with that.

I notice you're using conventional spelling. You do know that's a rule, imposed by authority, right?

edited 27th Jan '11 5:17:36 PM by Wanderhome

Ouch, the burn.

and I agree with that authority but just because I agree with on view point or authority doesn't mean I agree with all authority and it's a fallacy to imply otherwise, but I have noted your Chewbacca Defense and don't see how my spelling can be used against me.

edited 27th Jan '11 5:20:05 PM by americanbadass